Eise

No, I did not. Hawking uses the concept of 'predestination', and his argument is pointed against that. And predestination and determinism are simply not the same. Why do you think he uses the word 'determined' in these few paragraphs, but exactly in those lines he uses 'predestined'. The answer might be simple: because he realised that his argument about the gallows and the ship in the storm, resp. looking if a car is coming, only works against predestination. And predestination lightly leads to fatalism: the idea that 'whatever you do, everything is fixed' fits to both. But not to determinism, because there what you do matters. Even if what you do would not be an expression of free will. Sure, you have no argument why Hawking's argument would be a valid argument against not having free will.

In philosophy, one does not give a viewpoint without reasons why this viewpoint should be valid. As you don't, I can just put it aside. For me it is only obvious that Hawking means it to be an argument against not having free will. But he is wrong: it is an argument against fatalism. And I explained why.

Yes, but the original quote does not support it, as said, it is an argument against fatalism, not against not having free will. But also note that Hawking bases his view in favour of free will on the fact that we cannot explain human behaviour from fundamental laws of nature, just because it is too complicated. I would translate that as 'theoretically, we have no free will, but practically we take, and should take it, for granted'. Personally I think he misses the point, but to be sure I first should read the text as a whole.

Ah, well, that is interpretation too, and it is not bad as an abstract, but it is generally not a good idea to base philosophical discussions on abstracts. I found the complete text, and here is what, in my opinion, makes clear what Hawking means (added an empty line for readability): I think he should have left the red lines out, because they do not fit the rest argumentation. In all the text he is talking about 'determined', but in the red lines he switches to 'predestined', which are definitely different concepts. 'Predestined' means that whatever you do, your fate is fixed. For this Hawking's red lines fully apply, but it is not an argument against determinism. Say we are determined: then what we do is determined as well. But the 'whatever you do' is not valid anymore. If you die on the gallows or in a storm at sea depends on your decision, even if your decision is determined. That is simply not what 'predestined' means. The red lines are an argument against fatalism.

No it is not. There is a huge difference between 'predestined' and 'causally determined'. I do not even know if Hawking meant it as an argument in favour of free will. Seems more an argument against some funny kinds of theology. The only way is to find the citation in full context. May Google be with you.

Sorry, dimreepr, but most of the times I am missing concreteness in your reactions. I discovered that when I react to possible interpretations of vague arguments or questions I have to write a long reply, then I get another short reaction that at one side seems to show that I interpreted you wrong, and at the other side forces me to write another long reply, etc. And then you react you do not have the time/energy/intention to read long texts... If the topic interests you, I would suggest to illustrate your questions or arguments with examples, preferably taken from real life, that can give your reactions the clearness for a fruitful discussion. It is true, iNow and me are trained in scientific, resp philosophical discourse, and so we can meet (and cross swords...) on a pretty abstract level. But that in itself is not a sign of intelligence, it just means we are used to the words (I hesitate to write '.. and concepts ...'), and ways of thinking. But abstract thinking can also hide a lot of differences and nuances. Therefore I often ask for concrete, real life examples. If an abstract concept really means something to a speaker, shows itself if the person can still make the connection with concrete life. And that also reduces the chances that two people use the same word, but think different things by it.

Well, I am pretty sure that I did not design myself. What I am, at least originally, is of course beyond my control. Just as a real life example, my wife very much likes fruit, vegetables raw and cooked etc. But I like chocolate, beer, whiskey, smoking etc. So I said to her she is awfully lucky that she exactly likes food that is healthy. But I cannot change myself (well, a tiny bit maybe). 'I' am build up by many influences, most outside my control. But they made 'me' who 'I' am. And if 'I' can act according to who I am, I am free. There is only one person who decides if you will react again on this posting: you. But 'you' came not from thin air, you have a (causal) history. It build up your character, made you to the person you are now. The question if you are free or not has to do with how well you can act according to what you have become.

Yes. I see that you use 'being able to want what you want' as definition of free will. Doesn't that sound absurd?

Isn't this an open door? This sounds nearly as 'OK, it is your opinion'. A showstopper that is as good as 'it is just semantics'. I use the simplest definition of free will that I know of: being able to do what you want. Whereby the 'you' is that bag of water, that hears, speaks, walks, acts, thinks, creates scientific theories etc, not some entity in the bag of water, that is supposed to be causally independent from the rest of the body or universe.

No, it doesn't. The example shows that personality trades can change under the influence of parasites. But the concept of free will (or its counterpart 'coercion') applies to the relation between what you want, and what you do, not just on your character. Say, I have drunk too much alcohol, and under its influence I want to balance on a balustrade of a 100 meter high bridge. Happily enough my friends stop me from that, but that means they are limiting my free will (on good grounds of course) at that moment.

AFAIK this is the way at least some neurologists see it this way, and I think it has its merits. E.g. it gives an explanation of the effect of training. Consciousness is notoriously slow, and where fast action is needed, like in sports, you must train, so that most actions really bypass consciousness. But that has no impact on the matter of free will: the origin of the 'consciousness bypassing action' is still you (that bag of water...), and you will notice when an unconscious action is blocked. Imagine Roger Federer is playing a tennis match, but then somebody comes from behind, and suddenly holds Federer's tennis racket. Federer immediately will notice that his partially unconscious 'trained tennis program' is interrupted, and will be able to report that he just wanted to play the ball in the utmost left corner, before he was blocked. This reporting maybe consciousness after the fact, but that is no problem: as long as you recognise the action as your own, see the motives behind them, you will also recognise when you are blocked, i.e. when you cannot act according your own motives. So the simplest of definitions of free will, being able to do what you want, is not touched by this. It is only the heavily metaphysically loaded definition of 'uncaused consciousness always must cause our actions (and therefore precede it) for an action to be free', that is refuted by such mechanisms. But in a naturalist world view such a definition makes no sense from the beginning. It probably makes no sense at all.

But not in this thread. This is NonScientist's thread about his existential crisis around the problem of free will. Please continue the discussion in 'our' recent thread. 2 Things. In the first place science does not say we have no free will. Only scientists who make methodological unjustified extrapolations, using childish concepts of what free will is, do. In the second place (and iNow could be the most valuable discourse partner here), is that most people who think we have no free will, do not, to say the least, suffer from this belief, and many, much stronger, are positively happy with that. Really, you should explain to me why disbelief in free will necessarily leads to you being in a crisis. Every time somebody uses the 'nothing but' operator (also know as the 'just' operator) you can be sure that he leaves out that what is most important. A steam train is nothing but iron, coal and water. Problem is that a heap of iron and coals, and a lot of water, bring you nowhere. A steam train however does. The essential thing about a steam train is, that it is an object that can transport you. And we can easily see it, e.g. modern electrical trains also can transport you, i.e. the essence lies in the way the object is structured. Same with you: what you are essentially is not your chemical ingredients, but the way they work together. This gives rise to all kind of higher order phenomena: reasons, beliefs, actions, rules, beauty, and last but not least, meaning and free will. Of course this is not the free will of most religions (with the notorious exception of Buddhism): a soul steering the body, overruling even natural causality. It is also not the free will denied by the kind of scientists mentioned above. Both make the error to think that free will must be based on some (meta)physical objects or attributes. Obviously the same error you make. Free will is the capability of yours to let your actions be determined by your own motivations. And believe me, even iNow can do that. Freedom of the will also is not choosing who you are. You are born and grew up with a biological and personal biography, which made you what you are: i.e. you are determined by these. But on their turn, your actions are determined by you. If you do not like brussels sprouts, that cannot be changed. But standing for a buffet you are free not to take them. 'Freedom of the will' is not freedom from previous causes, but freedom to act according who you are. As iNow already noted: of course not. 'You' are the higher order processes running in your body, not your body itself. A train standing still brings you nowhere. So do not identify with a non-moving train; do not identify yourself with the substances you are made of. Most philosophers are compatibilists (Wikipedia), so do not blame them! I am a tiny example of such philosophers.

But I think it is an important question, and I think you really should try to answer this. Many people who say they do not believe in free will live a happy life, without any problem. There are even, also more than enough, people who defend that not believing in free will is a good thing: believing in free will leads to blaming, unjustified punishments, harshness ("Everybody is responsible for his own happiness"), to the heavy kind of free will that Jean-Paul Sartre was defending ('We are doomed to be free'. Yes, there are people who get depressed just by the opposite idea you say you need!). So for me at least there is no necessary connection between what one thinks about free will, and one's happiness, or even having an existential crisis. You are using the word 'pre-determined', which is not the same a 'determined'. I don't know if you are aware of that difference. 'Determined', at least in a naturalistic world view, means that every event follows from the state of the universe just before. 'Pre-determined' has its main usage in certain kinds of religion, especially the mono-theistic ones. God has planned everything, and humans are powerless to change anything. Confusing 'determined' and 'pre-determined' can lead to fatalism. Where we in fact are determined, we tend to see everything as 'pre-determined'. Fatalism is the position that whatever we do,we have no influence. But this is in its extreme a self-refuting position if one supposes determinism. What you decide, and how you act makes a difference per definition. You can doubt on what grounds you decide and act, but not that your actions do make a difference. Fatalism has at most a meaning in the meaning of 'powerless': e.g. I am very hard on the way to become a fatalist about the climate crisis. The powers in people, politicians, companies, etc to continue our present lifestyle are so much stronger than mine (our.. Greta and me...) to want to save the world, that I am close at giving up. And about being a robot: at least your a conscious robot. And that makes a huge difference. To be conscious means, amongst others, that you are aware of reasons to do something, and act according them. If you can, you are free. If you can't, e.g. because your actions are obstructed by others, you are not free.

Don't you think? From here. Please discuss, with good arguments of course.

You forgot something... Italics by me. No. The 'laws of nature' are not 'laws', but abstract descriptions of how nature behaves.

That is not true: some things are unstable.

The inside of a rainbow is always lighter than the outside. But these pictures were made when the sun was low above the horizon, so it was shining red. Therefore also the rainbow itself is mainly red. See this picture, that was obviously made when the sun was still higher above the horizon: I just looked it up: the raindrops reflect both from the backside as from the frontside. The light that reflects from the backside of the raindrops makes the rainbow itself, the light that reflects from the frontside are just reflected, and therefore has the same colour as the incoming light, mainly red in your case. See here.

That is nonsense. In a dream you might discuss with other people too, but those people are produced in your mind. They could even harm you in your dream! There is no rigid argument against solipsism. There is also no rigid argument in favour of solipsism. I think a better question would be what difference it would make for me. I personally think that if you go really into the matter, you will realise there is no practical difference. Philosophy can in some cases show the uselessness of a question. The question about solipsism is such a one in my opinion. But some philosophers might not agree with me...

If philosophy contradicts scientifically established facts, it is useless. This restricts logically where philosophy has something to say. See here for what philosophy's task is.

It can also give you a more analytical and critical mind. Something for you to study? Not really... But I am doing something useful: I am participating in philosophical questions on the science forum!

Thank you for the accolades. I hope I will not disappoint you. However, you made a lot of statements: o You never had use for philosophy o You never had use for philosophers o You never had respect for philosophy o You never had respect for philosophers Which ones apply? And which did I (hopefully) end? Can you use philosophers now?

No, it isn't. And what do you mean with just speculation? In the first place there are different kinds of speculation: By lack of knowledge about certain facts, one can speculate about what would be the case (e.g. crime cases). Theory developing in science. One tries to find a theory that explains more facts than existing ones, but which empirical verification (or falsification) is still outstanding. Speculation in science however should always be consistent with most known facts. So 'Einstein was wrong!' is a very bad speculation, because relativity has been confirmed by many facts. Not bothered by any real knowledge in the field, propose all kinds of wild ideas. Thinking about reality 'behind the scenes', e.g. questions about what reality really is, about God, etc. Good philosophy is neither of them, accept maybe some questions in the fourth category; but I personally do not favour such kind of questions. Not quit clear what you mean. Philosophy surely is not about empirical reality. For that we have the sciences. And it certainly is not some 'assertion'. But philosophy is the reflection on how we think about reality. Its aim is to uncover the presumptions we use, ambiguities in concepts, and eventually to criticise them. It tries to find out how we think, and how we should think if we want to get at valid conclusions. No, no, and no. None of the 4 forms of speculation above is philosophy. Philosophy is an academic discipline, a training in clear thinking in the domain of reflections on fundamental questions. Thereby it might be that philosophy never finds final answers: but that does not mean it is therefore speculation. One could say philosophy's aim is intellectual insight. As Strange already did, a philosopher would point out to you that you mixup causes and reasons. There are 2 ways you can explain why a building exists: it exists because stones were piled together with the correct cement between them etc. it exists because people needed a place to live in. The first is the question for the cause, the second for the reason. We know that in nature many things exist without a reason, they only have causes. For the universe as a whole the question might not be that clear, but at least there is no logical reason to assume that there is a reason why the universe exists. The philosopher would show you that your '... why ...' (in 'all that exist must have an explanation why they exist') is ambiguous, because it can refer to an explanation in term of causes, or an explanation in terms of reasons. You shift the meaning of what an explanation is between 'Buildings exist because of the builder's reason to build' and 'all that exist must have an explanation why they exist'.

Sorry, I was not very active recently, so I chime in a bit late. The question supposes that science (which science?) has the same object as philosophy. That is just not true. The question is like 'what is louder, red or green?'. Of course philosophy is not always correct. And science is neither. And again, while philosophy and science have different domains of interest, one cannot be a replacement for the other. Depends on which science. Psychology, history, literature, sociology are not so much accurate as e.g. physics. Philosophy surely tries to be as consistent as possible, but again, even if philosophy would be more accurate than physics, it is not a replacement for it, because it has a different research domain. Every science has its philosophical corners, namely there where the concepts or methods that are used in that science are reflected. Sometimes this is necessary, if a science discovers that it does not make progress, and this might be related to its most fundamental concepts or methods. And sporadically an outsider might notice that some aspects of a science are like an emperor without clothes, and sometimes this person is philosopher. But I think this is pretty seldom. So, no, science does not prove philosophy at all. Philosophers however should take care that they do not leave their area of speciality, and propose ideas that are in conflict with established science. If I repeated some answers already given, I was to lazy now to read the complete thread...

Well, intellectual clarity does not mean that it is easy. When physicists say that they have a clear understanding of relativity, that does not mean that everybody can follow them. Yep. Or unable.

Yes, and relativity and QM are also still highly disputed. Look at all those postings of crackpots coming in here! So many more threads on it than on "2+2". I can't help that there are so many crackpots thinking that the problem isn't solved yet. The 'problem' with relativity, QM and the solution of free will, is that they are (partially) counter intuitive. The extra problem with free will is that intuitions are very dear to many people, connected to their answer on the meaning of life, and their world view in general. That is true both for 'hard determinists' and believers in contra causal free will.